Gravity
"How is this a movie?" I thought. "What happens? How can they just sustain that for 90 minutes?" Then I factored in the heavyweight star power in the film and really couldn't guess what was going to happen.
All I knew, was that I was going to see that film as soon as possible.
It was a refreshing inner monologue to have because after most film trailers, even for films I am interested in still seeing, I know, pretty much what is going to happen in the film by the end and what kind of film it is. Gravity was different though. I didn't have a clue.
I am a big fan of Alfonso Cuarón's dystopian action drama Children of Men and he's the only man to make a satisfactory Harry Potter film so I knew, with the director, I was in safe and interesting hands. I am also an unabashed George Clooney disciple, believing the man to have pretty impeccable taste in scripts and projects to work on (seriously, listen to my 'When Clooney met the Coens podcast' he's my man crush). Sandra Bullock is a great comedienne and can pretty much raise the standard of any generic rom-com or action-com she takes part in. I haven't seen a lot of her "serious, worthy" films and I don't want to but "an interesting choice" I thought and a good fit with Clooney.
So what was going to happen in this mysterious space film?
Well, I am not going to tell you here. If you're looking for spoilers or plot points then you've come to the wrong place because it's best to go into Gravity fresh and ready for anything. What I can tell you is that it is one of the most breath taking, nerve shredding, tension sustaining, technically advanced and most complex directed film, I think, I have ever seen. I would need to watch it again, not because of any twisty turny story developments but to try and wrap my brain around just the level of organisation and unfathomable skill that went into creating this heart pounding 90 minutes.
It is a sublime magic trick of a film because, unlike the cartoonish nonsense of, say, Avatar or Abrams' Star Trek you just, quite reasonably, assume that Clooney, Bullock and Cuarón filmed the whole thing in ACTUAL SPACE. Cuarón realises that to wow and amaze with CGI and modern special effects, you don't need to go hog wild and create insane worlds and multi-headed monsters, just make a seemingly realistic and simple film, set in space. He did the same thing to similar wonderful effect in Children of Men. It's not what you see, it's what you don't realise you've seen. You take everything for granted in a Cuarón film and buy the world completely, it's only later that you stop and think "Wait?! how on EARTH did they do that?!"
In an age where everyone knows "oh yeah, they just draw that stuff on a computer, right?" (you know, like ANYONE could do it effortlessly) it takes real skill to hush those tongues and drag the audience, spellbound and quiet as amazed church mice, into your film.
There is a similar trick that the story pulls and that is that, with so few cast members, you know somebody, logically and presumably, is making it to the end of this film alive but that never holds you back from being on the edge of your seat, biting your knuckles or gripping the hand of your loved one next to you, every time peril rears it's ugly head.
Peril's ugly head
The acting, too, is fantastic, with Sandra Bullock, especially, giving, to quote EVERY critic on the planet, the performance of her career. Hell! the performance of anyone's career! For the physical strain, it must have been to make this film, alone she deserves all the Oscars Billy Crystal can quickly polish and shove into the back of a Lexus. That's not to say Clooney's a slouch but it becomes pretty apparent why they cast him after just a few lines of dialogue, in a pleasing, welcome way.
Again, like Children of Men, the film is a mix of genres. It gave me more of a jolt and locked me rigid with tension more than any horror film of recent times, it has enough action in it to please any of John McClane's ardent admirers and it's also an achingly beautiful science fiction film, with critics throwing around 2001: A Space Odyssey comparisons like happy, pretentious puppies with a Kubrick designed squeeze toy. It may just be Clooney, the minimalist cast and an emotional theme of the film but referencing Solaris, in an attempt to seem smart and educated, might be slightly more apt actually.
It is in the emotional, character based thread of the film's narrative, though, that the first tiny, critical comment must be made because the slightly over-egged and obvious motivations of Bullock's character and the emotional journey she undertakes, is not as deep, fleshed out, or as relevant as the film thinks it is. I would argue it's the physical journey, and the mental struggle and dilemma that produces, that is a more satisfying and watchable than her emotional one. However, like all good sci-fi, there's lots of layers to the thing and you can enjoy what you want about it. I just didn't think the script or dialogue was particularly strong when dealing with a certain topic, that will remain unnamed here.
It's a film all about connections though, in more ways than one, and the ultimate connection we must make with our own lives. That being said, it's also, pleasingly, about hair raising stunts and explosions in space. Unusually, if I urge you to go see this film at all, it's for that, latter reason, the sheer, jaw dropping, spectacle of it all.
Oblivion Review
The just second time director (also creator of the graphic novel on which this is based) has vision by the bucket load but no sense of timing within the story telling and can't really mount an exciting action sequence.
Loved the design, though and Tom cruise's performance was tremendous. It's crazy that I like him more and more as an actor but with this, Jack Reacher and the Mission Impossible films he's proving himself to really just be a watchable, enjoyable and, in this, a damn fine actor. Having seemingly dropped the annoying, chest thumping earnestness that plagued his younger, dramatic roles. In this he is just the right level of wistful, cheeky and action man so as to be intriguing and an engaging protagonist for us to be stuck with for 2hrs plus. Good thing too as the entire film hangs on his diminutive shoulders. Also a good thing that his space suit mirrors those collarless leather jackets his prizes above all others.
I didn't much care for the English redheaded actress in the film, Andrea Riseborough. She seemed too young, too serious, too annoying and just not well matched to the subject matter or her leading man. True her part doesn't really give her much to do and yes a certain reveal in the film later explains away some of her characters inability to embrace Cruise's character's romance with Earth but even so, while it's clear she is a talented actress, her performance grated with me and felt out of place.
The rest of the performers in the film were satisfactory considering the one note parts they had been handed out. Morgan Freeman has a cool "Oh look it's Morgan Freeman" entrance that they sadly ruined in the trailer but apart from that his purpose is to be the kindly, wise but strong African American sci-fi character cut from much of the same cloth as Lawrence Fishburne in The Matrix.
Overall the film is literally every science fiction film ever made rolled into one but with a great design and enough new for you not to mind what it's got in common with previous films such as 2001, Moon and even Independence Day.
In a film that needed to balance lofty ideas, a few twists, an epic sense of romance and explosive action I am not sure it 100% succeeded and the score, sadly, doesn't help this by being flat and instantly forgettable but for a second time director, if you like proper Sci-Fi and want to see a riveting Cruise performance, well you can't go wrong.
A flat 7 out of 10 cool 70s looking airline lunch.
Don Dohler-Fest 2 coming to The After Movie Diner Podcast featuring Interview with GEORGE STOVER
The is week on Monday February 6th
the After Movie Diner Podcast
is continuing its coverage of
is continuing its coverage of
Don Dohler films
with Galaxy Invader and Alien Factor 2
Trailer
Whole film!!
Trailer
and I haven't even got to the
MOST EXCITING PART
yet and that is that this week's episode features
AN INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE STOVER
Yes the actor who starred in ALL of Don's movies in one way or other comes on the show to tell us all about how he met and what it was like working with 'The Family Dohler' of crew and cast, his favourite of the roles and films and much much more!
Check it out MONDAY FEBRUARY 6th
or subscribe on iTunes here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/podcast-from-after-movie-diner/id452996435
A FISTFUL OF DOHLERS
It's HERE - to Listen to the show click the link below!
PRESENTS
'A Fistful of Dohlers'
A look at the life & films of one Mr. Don Dohler
FEATURING
AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH JOHN KINHART DIRECTOR OF 'BLOOD BOOBS & BEASTS'
available on Hulu or to rent and buy from Amazon
available on Hulu or to rent and buy from Amazon
Nick, Phil and Myself will look at 3 of Dohler's early Sci-Fi and Horror films
Alien Factor (1978)
Fiend (1980)
and
Blood Massacre (1991)
Those not familiar with Don Dohler he is a no-budget Baltimore based Horror and Sci-Fi director who, since watching the EXCELLENT documentary and 4 of his 5 early films, I have become hugely enamored with.
We discussed Nightbeast (another of his films) on an earlier podcast
I can't suggest him too highly for fans of B-Movies, schlock, creature features and horror.
Get ready because a FIST FULL OF DOHLERS is coming your way!Children of Men - 28th May 2011
Primarily that people have really really short term memories!
For a film this good to seemingly have been all but forgotten under the vast bottom cough smelling swamp that is modern "churn 'em up and vomit them out" movie making seems to be a bit of an unforgivable crime.
Clive Owen, in the middle of, what I like to call, his grubby trench coat period, stars in what is clearly his best film to date and launched him, to some extent, internationally as the most unlikely of British action heroes, till Liam Neeson took that title later with Taken.
If you don't know the story it is set in the not-too-distant dystopian future where Women are infertile and have been for 18 years, the rest of the world has crumbled and only Britain, just about, survives, although it's a pretty grim fucking place to be. Clive Owen is the sad-sack office employee who doesn't much care for the life he's leading, except for the occasional breaks in the countryside he takes, visiting his older pot-head, liberal friend played by Michael Caine. Then a blast from the past crops up in the form of Julianne Moore's underground revolutionary and he gets embroiled in an adventure where the whole future of human existence ends up resting in his hands.
The futuristic setting is rendered completely realistically with a stunningly grey and mundane colour palette. Utilising long and seemingly uninterrupted steady cam shots the drama, violence, action and stunning yet grimy visuals are balletic and beautiful and you just completely accept everything you're seeing like it's newsreel from the future.
I can only imagine the choreography or the effects work that went into achieving this result but I suspect it's probably a bit of both. You won't fully appreciate this till about the third time of watching it because the film, the plot, the characters, the acting, the style, the camerawork, everything is just so absorbing, interesting, intricate and exciting that you are picked up and swept along by the whole thing that you barely have time to take a breath and look around at what the editor or director is doing.
It is both a very modern way to approach film making but also seems to have an affinity with the British and European films of the past especially. In the sense that it is a fairly complex, intelligent thriller with realistic violence but a nice air of down to earth irony, spirit and even that very British trait of nonchalance. It also has touches of Terry Gilliam's work, it's like the set designer from Twelve Monkeys and the set designer of Brazil had a cinematic love child.
Now just in case you thought this was all style over substance, because I was banging on about the look of the piece, then don't fear this has all the weighty plot and the first class acting one could require from a film, all tinged with a very dark sense of humour. As it's never explained why the human race went infertile, the film is not really a specific allegory on any one thing and neither is it a cautionary tale, in that way it is sort of pure science fiction as you can read into it anything you want. Basically though, human beings are wasteful, aggressive, bureaucratic bastards and take themselves all way too seriously.
The cast are all brilliant but I am surprised Owen hasn't received some sort of Oscar for mumbling as he has, possibly, one of the most downtrodden and sometimes droney voices ever committed to celluloid but this does mean when he has moments of happiness or moments of emotion and his face and voice come alive, it's all the more powerful.
If you haven't seen it then please rush out, get hold of it and watch it now. Films like this that have a bit of everything in them and actually succeed are a rare breed and when they emerge, seemingly like a fluke, from some, actually talented, little corner of the universe we should make sure they are never forgotten and attain the classic status they so richly deserve.
10 out of 10 puffs of Strawberry Cough
Points from The Wife - 8 out of 10
Escape from New York - 17th May 2011
For film snobs there maybe more duds than greats, but they rarely know what they're talking about, for the average viewer the quality may vary slightly but mostly I think they find them enjoyable and for the hardened fan, I would say that Carpenter barely put a foot wrong during this period.
Even if you like some of the films more than the others, it can't be denied that he has one of the most creatively interesting, diverse, artistic and fascinating resumes since Hitchcock.
Escape from New York is his second collaboration with Kurt Russell and both of them have spoken about how Snake Plissken is a character created by and very close to both of them, sharing their attitude, strength and political beliefs. Russell plays him like Clint Eastwood's futuristic 80s love baby with a chip on his shoulder. Every single one of his mannerisms is an education in purposeful cool. The one thing you can say about Snake is Russell is playing him as a hard man without a care rather than necessarily being a hard man without a care. It's almost a pastiche of a performance but I think that's maybe one of the in-jokes, especially considering everyone else in the film from Lee Van Cleef to Issac Hayes comes up to his level nothing feels out of place and the whole film plays like the greatest B-Picture ever made.
It's got the futuristic setting mixed with the decay of the past, it's got the lone gun man with an iconic look who rides into town to do a job he doesn't want to do but he has no choice, it's got ball busting militarised police, crazy sewer dwellers, a bad guy called The Duke, a strong, gutsy leading lady with a low cut dress, a cast that includes b-movie and genre icons Donald Pleasance, Harry Dean Stanton, Ernest Borgnine and it's all filmed with a slightly hyper-real comic book style where the fact that everyone is taking it so seriously is the biggest joke in the movie. It's often been imitated and never ever bettered.
As Carpenter's career moved forward so, often, did his role. Occasionally he was just a director for hire, other times he maybe wrote, maybe did the score and in the quintessential, pure Carpenter flicks he did all three. Well just as Escape maybe the best modern example of the B-Movie it may also be the most all round John Carpenter film of them all. From the cast and crew of friends to the oh so recognisable brilliant Carpenter synth score, Escape from New York is perfectly crafted, beautifully shot and interestingly written with intentionally cliche and familiar dialogue set against an original and creative plot.
The thing you realise watching it again is it gives itself time to breathe, it's pace is deliberately slower and more artistic, allowing you to create an eerie, unsettling mood and take in the incredible art direction and set design but maintains interest, intensity and drive by using the time-running-out element.
Nowadays this film would have 50 cuts a second, a charmless non-entity in the title role, utterly redundant action scenes and a hero who, deep down would really care. A modern day Escape from New York would suck big hairless balls.
Unfortunately John Carpenter's films were raided by studios unwilling to fund a Carpenter original and instead made atrociously shitty remakes from his staggering body of work. Why? nobody knows, it makes little to no sense. I could rant, kick and scream right now but I am too tired and I hope, now that the whole Gerald Butler *shudder* remake is not going ahead that they leave this one well alone because it is just brilliant, visually interesting, amusing and cliché while at the same time being seriously original and inventive.
Nothing about it needs to be remade, it looks incredible, yes it says the future is 1997 but that's part of its charm, we don't need to update things for children, they can understand the concept of a film from '81 considering '97 the future, what are we going to do, reprint all the covers and re-do the title sequence of Space 1999 to read Space 2099?
Plus just a little bit more on remakes because John Carpenter's films have been victim to this current irritating disease (as have friend and colleague George A Romero's) so it is sort of relevant. If you must remake films and I have no idea why you must, you creatively bankrupt bunch of childhood rapers, remake old bad films with good ideas that didn't have the money first time round to realise the idea don't realise established classics.
I, for one, will not be allowing my children, if I ever have any, to watch remakes. They will watch the originals as they were intended to be seen. So that there is someone left to spread the word, it's already depressing having to add either the date or the words 'the original' to a film now when you're discussing it, lets not let these remakes take over and re-write a whole history of amazing art for future generations.
There are three main exceptions to this rule: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the 70s Don Sutherland version), John Carpenter's The Thing (because it draws mainly from the book and not the original film) and the Coen Brother's True Grit. The reason these ones are exempt from my wrath should be obvious.
Anyway, back to Escape From New York, it's a really great movie, one of my faves, one of Carpenter's best and one of Russell's best. With heaps of independent spirit, a great little politically charged twist ending and even a cameo from Tom Atkins, what more could anyone want? oh and I also like the sequel, haters of the sequel are stupid and have forgotten what it was like to be young and not so judgmental.
9 out of 10 snakes in a baguette
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10
Source Code - 30th April 2011
Well, as I have said before, I am not sure Inception was quite as intelligent as everyone gave it credit for but in the first half of the year we have already had The Adjustment Bureau and now Source Code, both of which seem to come hot on Inception's tale dealing as they do with questions about what is real or not and alternate realities.
That is by no means to say that Source Code is an Inception clone or rip off, merely to imply that it is part of the first wave of more intelligent yet no less entertaining sci-fi thrillers to grace the silver screen since Inception's success.
Source Code's plot initially reads and actually plays like a really good Quantum Leap episode via Groundhog Day, but if Sam Beckett was played by someone with actual charisma or if Bill Murray had to stop lots of people from dying instead of convince Andie McDowell to love him.
It's about a soldier, Jake Gyllenhaal, who is part of some new technology which, just like Quantum Leap (complete with reflections in the mirror different to that of Gyllenhaal), allows him to be repeatedly dropped into the body of another man, for a small and set period of time, who is on a train, bound for Chicago, with a bomb on it. Gyllenhaal's task and he seems to have no choice in the matter whether he accepts it or not, is to, in this limited time period, find out where the bomb is and who planted it. The film then basically takes you through all the logical scenarios one might go through if actually in that situation and does so in such a way that, despite the repeated setting and conversations, it never gets tired.
It is also half way through the film when you suddenly realise the catch and the fact that the real mystery is where is Gyllenhaal's soldier really and what is actually going on.
The first thing I would say is how good Jake Gyllenhaal is in this movie. The last thing I saw him in was Love and Other Smugs and that was so bowel shatteringly awful I am not sure, with hindsight, how I made it through to the end without being sick but in Source Code he gives a believable, if occasionally overly earnest portrayal of exactly what you'd expect someone to go through if such a situation ever presented itself: disbelief, fear and, refreshingly, some humour.
Even the slightly unnecessary emotional journey that he goes on through the course of the film, to do with his father, is handled in a slightly more subtle way than usual and the whole film, pleasingly, has less heroics and more actual thought and detection in it. Which is odd because the marketing made it look like a stupid action film the likes of which Nic Cage would be better suited to, when in reality it is a proper, almost old fashioned slice of well realised science fiction.
So it was well written and very competently directed by Bowie Jnr, Duncan Jones, with nothing particularly flashy about any of it, just successfully performing the very difficult task of taking several strands of storyline, which take place over two very different and separate places in time, in what could of been a confusing and complex structure and making it all seem coherent, realistic, plausible and understandable. No mean feet, all things considered.
There were two aspects of the film that took a little bit of a Hollywood liberty and that had to do with the female leads in both sections of his story.
In the present world, Gyllenhaal is talked through his mission by a female military officer played by Vera Farmiga and, without giving too much away (MINOR SPOILER ALERT), it is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, that in the short time she has been working with him, he would be able to win over a trained soldier like her to put her job on the line for him like she does.
The same can be said for the Michelle Monaghan character in the past world, in the sense that, seeing as she only really gets to spend eight minutes total with the Gyllenhaal possessed version of her friend, that they end up where they do is a bit of a leap even if she was always leaning in that direction with her actual friend in the first place.
However, both the women perform their, little bit thankless, roles very well and sell, to the best of their abilities, the slightly tall order of the story.
A special mention goes to Jeffrey Wright who plays Dr.Rutledge, he is the head of and inventor of the project that is currently using Gyllenhaal, and he plays the part of a slightly fastidious, nerdy old man with a limp and slightly dubious morals with such relish that it is an absolute pleasure to watch.
It's rare these days that actors are asked or given the free reign to play parts a little slightly over the top, with maybe a funny voice or a quirky tic and when the best of them do, I could watch it all day.
It's difficult to discuss the film further without giving too much away, things like this really are better watched knowing as little as possible and I do urge you to go see it as I thought it was an engaging and enjoyable sci-fi romp with a little bit of naval gazing existentialism thrown in for good measure.
Out of the three so-called intelligent sci-fi thrillers that I spoke about at the beginning of the review, personally, I liked this one the best and would definitely watch it again.
8 out of 10
Paul - 27th March 2011
Lots of talk of compromise with the studio and mentions of going mainstream didn't sit right with me and not because I am a stubborn Hollywood studio basher but because this is Simon Pegg and Nick Frost writing and starring in a film about two Sci-Fi loving Brits, road tripping in America, who happen to pick up a real life Alien in New Mexico, because this is a film with a cast list that reads like a comedy nerd and a film geek's ultimate wish list (throw Bruce Campbell in there and you'd be completely set) and because these are the guys who made Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz on their terms and were hugely successful with that, if they don't know exactly how to do this movie right then nobody does.
The idea that this film was in anyway tampered with so that some family of Reality TV fans from Butt-crack Idaho (no offense Idahoans, just picked a state at random!) would more understand the jokes or be less offended by the science vs. religion debate that re-occurs in the film makes me sick up a little in my mouth with pure fury because it means there is a good version of Paul out there, possibly, and instead what we got was this watered down, fairly amiable but predictable comedy that could've starred Eric Stoltz, Lou Diamond Phillips and a box on a stick for all that it mattered.
They made two statements as to the reasoning behind working within the studio system and one was they needed the money to realise Paul as a fully CG character, which is completely understandable and two was because they wanted to see if they could write and star in a mainstream Hollywood comedy.
Now this second part isn't understandable at all because firstly you'd write something a little more crowd pleasing than this, somewhat niche, idea and secondly, when you already have legions of loyal dedicated fans who love your work and will happily lap up any similarly interesting and inventive stories, why would you want to throw some of that away to get a passing glance from a regular schmo just trying to find something not very challenging to do on a Friday night in Sweaty Crevice, Nebraska? and yet it is apparently the goal of lots of other independent minded geek heros such as Sam Raimi, Peter Jackson, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp and even the director of Paul it seems, Greg Mottola. They all, seemingly, want to be Steven Spielberg, who, to my mind, while he has done plenty that I have liked, is one of the least exciting, creatively intelligent or challenging directors ever to work in film.
Simon Pegg too, especially, is attempting to be a cross between Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise rather than be content being himself and while I am in no place to judge and cannot possibly imagine the tempting offers these people get to helm great big movies or star in blockbusters, I just think it's a crushing shame we seem to get a shorter and shorter period of these unique voices doing what they are good at before they are swallowed whole and become just another mass-produced, supposedly crowd-pleasing sound bite.
I don't want to see Pegg in Star Trek 12 or Mission Impossible 4, neither do I want him attempting to forge a successful rom-com career in a series of bland, irrelevant farces and while I accept you can't make Spaced forever, just like that series ended too soon, so has the partnership between the three geniuses behind Shawn and Fuzz. The carrot they dangle in front of fans of a third film together is akin to the Evil Dead 4 rumour that Raimi won't shut up about. If any one of these, now successful, people actually wanted to make these films, they would. They would pursue them with passion and verve instead of, in the case of Raimi, scrabbling around to find a star for a Wizard of Oz prequel nobody wants! Christ on a 3 speed street cleaner it gets me so annoyed I could tear my own teeth out bare handed.
It is possible this is why I gravitate towards the works of Bruce Campbell, Kevin Smith, Terry Gilliam or Tom Waits because while each of them has certainly had brushes with big fame, their time in the spotlight, the opportunity to maybe follow that A-List path if they changed a little and compromised or in the case of Gilliam, Smith and even Campbell noticeable big failures with studio films, they have each forged careers that rely on their abilities, who they are, what their voice is and sticking true to what people love about them without, seemingly and in an overly vulgar way just chasing the almighty dollar.
Anyway, back to Paul and while it may seem like I have strayed from the point somewhat, it actually all factors in to why, for me certainly, Paul was a bit of a failure and a decidedly missed opportunity. Maybe my expectations were too high or maybe I misunderstood it all but it just wasn't engaging enough.
The main problems with Paul is that it's not very funny, there is no character development and the title stinks. Now this may very well be down to studio medalling, a bad editor or a freak occurrence in the space time continuum or it could also be down to the fact that they just didn't write a very good script but whatever the reason, it was a decidedly chuckle free affair with only a few scenes, most notably any time Jo Lo Truglio and Bill Hader are on the screen, worthy of a murmur of hilarity.
In the case of the two leads, Pegg and Frost, this duo, that usually have an enormous amount of screen chemistry because of their close friendship in real life and who are usually hilarious working together, were pretty shockingly boring if I am honest. Simon Pegg had stated that while it is true to say that Frost usually does the comedy and Pegg handles more serious lead man acting, in Paul the roles were reversed whereas actually what happened is neither appears to be the funny one. They don't have carefully defined characters, or much characters at all to be honest, Pegg still handles the bulk of the dialogue and has the romantic lead and the funniest thing Frost does all film is fall over and you saw that in the trailer.
It is just so knee crunchingly annoying that Edgar Wright made Scott bloody Pilgrim and didn't decide to come on board for this because I think after he had a more carefully structured go at the script and with a bit of his visual flair there was enough potential and story here to make a great fan favourite and not the inbetween, not quite one thing nor the other, flip-flopping mess it ended up being.
I am not a jumper on band wagons and I certainly like, watch and own some of the films he has been in but what is it about Seth Rogen that I am missing? He's not particularly a good actor, he has an annoying voice and is neither particularly witty nor gifted as a physical comedian and yet for the last few years he has been everywhere like a particularly pungent gassy emission. His best role was in Superbad as the crazy policeman and he was a little more expressive in the underrated Zack & Miri but I do not think his voice performance here fit the bill, maybe his voice is too recognisable or maybe he wasn't given a lot to work with but a lot of his supposed jokes fall flat and after a while the voice does just begin to grate. The CG creation of Paul though is spot on and he does seamlessly blend into the film without any of the problems that plague a Jar Jar Binks for example and considering his distain for the character in Spaced, it could be considered brave that Pegg would write a totally CG character like Paul.
Also one more bit on the acting and that is, inexplicably filling the film with famous funny people doesn't automatically mean you get a funny film, geek points or hard laughter of recognition and I don't know what's going on but why can't anyone give Kristen Wiig a decent role in a film? she is such a funny comedienne and seems capable of so much but every film she is in, except maybe Adventureland, she has absolutely nothing amusing to do. The running gag in Paul that she discovers swearing has a couple of moments but it would be nice to see that Pegg and Frost could come up with something funnier than finding different ways to say testicles and tiny bladder jokes.
The direction is pedestrian and average at best, which is also annoying as I like Mottola's other films but with Paul I guess he is fine with some of the more normal scenes but anything that required action or a little bit of speed and it was pretty woefully inept unfortunately.
Sci-Fi geek comedy has been done better and funnier both in Free Enterprise and Fanboys, which was also a road trip movie like Paul, and I think the reason for this was those two movies had very set characters that you cared about and didn't shy away from totally immersing themselves in the references and, of course, therefor are cult favourites with a fan base rather than opening across the country in multiplexes everywhere to a distinctly muted reaction and fairly poor box office. Why would a studio, presumably, say "we want to be in the Pegg & Frost business" and then try and tell Pegg & Frost what they can and can't do, it seems illogical to the extreme and absolutely mind boggling. In the press tour interviews I have seen the pair seem less happy and jokey than in the past, I wonder if this has to do with the film they had their arm twisted to produce.
I am so sorry to be so harsh on what is a fairly harmless road movie with a CGI alien, a half-arsed but appreciated attempt to bring up the 'aliens defy the idea of a single deity/religion' debate in something mainstream and some mildly amusing cursing but, for me it had all the ideas and possibility to be a great, great movie without ever actually, really delivering or committing to any of it.
I love the cast, love the plot, love the setting, love the references and I am an atheist, surely this film should've been 10 out of 10 but unfortunately, if it's fun and laughter you're after then I suggest you bypass the movie altogether and go straight to the behind the scenes vlogs they shot using Flipcams, which certainly prove the old adage that a film that is fun to make is hard to watch.
5 out of 10 re-animated dead bird sandwiches
Points from the Wife 6 out of 10
The Adjustment Bureau - 7th March 2011
Sorry, for anyone who cares and enjoys this blog, not that I am delluded enough to believe that's anymore than 2 of you but sorry nonetheless.
I have quite a few reviews stored up and this first one is actually a film I saw a whole month ago, before I left on a trip across seas.
So I am sorry again but please take into account that I am writing this one from memory and my memory isn't so good.
What is most telling about the film is that it is based on a short story by Philip K Dick, the man who wrote the stories that ended up being Blade Runner, Total Recall and that classic Nic Cage film... er... Next (which actually I didn't mind so much). The reason I mention this is because, try as they might, they can't really pad out the script or fill it well enough to make the idea feel anything more than a short story idea.
I would say, therefor, that the main problem with this film is the script because the acting, the cinematography, the direction, the locations and the soundtrack are all spot on, some exactly what you'd expect and other things, especially the acting, far better than you'd expect.
The short comings with the script are mainly that, like I say, it strains and sags at points attempting to crank this out to 2 hours which only goes to highlight the contrivances in the story and the fact they have to dance around using the word God or admitting, really, the existence of a higher power.
Basically the plot is this:
There is a young senator who is embarrassed on the last night of the election by some tabloid nonsense and so must admit defeat, despite being the better man for the job (of course). Then just before his concession speech meets Emily 'bum chin' Blunt, who is crashing a wedding upstairs, in a man's bathroom where, like all good Hollywood meetings between beautiful people, they throw chemistry about the place like children with spaghetti and end up sucking face before she has to dash off to escape the fuzz.
We then leap forward some time and he is running for election again and still fixated with The Bluntster, after a lot of will they/won't they shenanigans, some men in hats show up and tell Damon he can never be with Em so he should get her out of his mind. They are from this shadowy omnipresent organisation (basically angels) and they help keep all of us on our right path, which is whatever they determine it to be.
They have decided that for Damo and her Bluntness to be together it would be a catastrophe (despite, apparently, being destined to be together in the past) and it would also mean neither of them would succeed in their chosen professions, he as a gasbag politician and her as the next Black Swan (she's a ballet dancer). Damon doesn't accept any of this and runs around trying to prove them all wrong.
Like in any circumstance like this, who you really need is, of course, Terrance Stamp who is despatched as a ruthless hard-nut to try and convince Mathias Damonias to see the error of his ways, this doesn't work and the film rumbles on towards its inevitable conclusion.
It is a wonder, considering how silly and pointless it all sounds, that actually the film is such a good watch and not a bad attempt at a slice of philosophic sci-fi. This is mainly down to the actors who were absolutely superb and the director who manages, when it's needed, to keep the pace up.
It focusses far more on their love story than it does the be-hatted men and is all the better for it. You need to care about these two for any of the other mumbo jumbo to matter or seem a threat and so the film takes its time making sure you see them as good honorable, yet kooky and individual people that you'd like to have a drink and a laugh with. Although I am not sure anybody needs the scene where Blunty tries to get Matt to loosen up at an industrial rave, not only does it seem woefully outdated but also out of character for the pair of them.
It could do with being 30 minutes shorter and maybe having a slightly darker, thoughtful ending but for what it is, which is a rom-com with some Sci-fi and not the other way round, it works, is watchable but by no means essential.
7 out of 10 not quite mysterious enough boxes of heart shaped chocolates from the future.
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10
The Thing - 7th January 2011
The print for this particular version was excellent and I have never seen the film looking so incredible.
The wife and I are huge John Carpenter fans and apart from Ghosts of Mars and the last part of Vampires (I always fall asleep) I have watched and can watch everything he's ever done. When John Carpenter works with Kurt Russell, it's particularly brilliant and the two of them have created some of the best fantasy cinema available. While Big Trouble in Little China might be a lot more fun and The Escape movies may have the real cult classic status with an iconic character, The Thing is probably their best film together and the one that can stand head to head with any other Horror or Sci-Fi film out there. Based on the short story 'Who goes there' it is a deceptively simple and expertly executed plot about a research centre in the South Pole that unwittingly invites a shape shifting Alien into their midst and the hunt is on to find out who has been infected and who hasn't. Along the way there are shocks, surprises, twists and turns all complemented in a jaw droppingly inventive and innovative fashion by a 22 year old Rob Bottin's special effect work.
At the time it was released audiences and critics were turned off by the incredible effects accomplishment, that and this dark tale of mistrust in the Antarctic came out the same year as ET. Read what you want into the fact I have seen ET probably once when I was young and have had literally no desire to ever see it again and The Thing I have seen repeatedly and it still surprises, amuses, interests and amazes me every time.
After its initial failure I think, actually, it was the effects that helped it gain in notoriety and find its audience, especially after the acceptance of other effects heavy horrors like Nightmare on Elm Street. I think, when I first got into genre pics it was certainly all I heard about in relation to the flick.
Actually, the effects aspect may have overshadowed what is at the core of this film's staying power and that goes right back to the original story. The idea that there's a group of people, one or many of them maybe your enemy and you don't know which one. The mystery aspect of the film and the subsequent surprises it kicks up is by far what is the most entertaining and important part of this film. The fantastical effect sequences, the likes of which have rarely been seen before or since are what help with constant repeat viewings as they are just so wonderfully artistic and surreal in places but even with repeat viewings I can never 100% remember who gets changed and who doesn't.
The ensemble cast are terrific and it's no one person's movie, yes Kurt Russell gets the cool hat and the cool name but everyone in the film plays their part perfectly. The direction too is fantastic. It's subtle, never showy, always on the mark and builds the tension, telling the central story, perfectly. Also, you'd have no idea watching the film that the interiors were filmed on refrigerated sets in LA, such is the perfect blending of interior and exterior filming.
One surprising thing, for all Carpenter fans is that the music credit goes to Ennio Morricone. Known for writing his own scores to a lot of his films and having a very signature style of doing so, it's incredible that with a composer of Morricone's stature that the score comes out sounding like Carpenter himself could've done it. It's also unusual that Carpenter didn't write the screenplay either and was essentially brought on as a director for hire and yet it is completely and utterly a Carpenter film and, not only that, one of his most beloved and celebrated these days (hindsight, what a wonderful thing).
I guess I don't have to reiterate this but if you ever get a chance to see this eerie and exciting film on the big screen, drop what you're doing and go see it because it's a masterpiece.
I spoke before about Die Hard being the perfect film, the perfect action movie, a film that just came along, did what it said on the tin but did it with style, panache and incredible creativity, well, The Thing is to Horror/Sci-Fi what Die Hard is to action movies, routinely imitated but never bettered.
10 out of 10 frozen dog burgers and a shot of J&B over a game of computer chess
Points from The Wife 10 out of 10! It's one of her favourite films of all time.
Dollhouse - August 2010
Right, so between Abrams and Whedon (not that it's a fight particularly), I am firmly in the Whedon camp. Especially as I don't trust anyone who doesn't reveal their first name, what's with the J.J. ? hmmmmmm? Seems pretentious as hell if you ask me.
I have the fondest memories of watching Buffy at university with my housemates. They used to be released in 2 VHS boxsets a few months apart and each time my friend would purchase a box set we would have a Buffy marathon. A ton of sweets and munchies would be purchased, duvets would be brought down to the sofa, curtains would be drawn, eyes would be glued to the screen, laughs would be had and lectures would be missed. I would later buy them and Angel on DVD myself and with my wife, who I introduced to them, I would watch every episode again back to back. Then Firefly and Serenity, which I consider Joss Whedon's finest hour, would prove to me that Whedon seemingly can do no wrong and also introduced me to Nathon Fillion who could prove to be the next generation Bruce Campbell.
Joss Whedon firstly writes good characters and then secondly gives them interesting and unexpected things to do, not like M. Night Shamalawhotsit where it became a twist for twists sake (although Joss does terrific twists) and not like Lost where the unexpected things happened because the writers seemed to be scrabbling around for any old 'cool' idea but because it makes sense within the parameters of the plot. In every Whedon show you get the distinct impression it's actually building to a genuine climax and that you won't be disappointed, I never feel like I am being taken down a blind alleyway he can't get us out of and you also get the feeling that he has thought this through, you are in safe hands and he cares. Also he is funny, really funny, you only have to watch Dr.Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog to see that (review coming soon because I watched that again this weekend).
So, to Dollhouse then, the show that before I'd even seen a frame of it I knew it had been cancelled, reviews had been mixed and I had heard from friends that they didn't really like it either. This was a challenge then because I wanted to see it and judge it for myself but I also didn't want to watch the first Whedon show that I might not like. I was also on the fence about Eliza Dushku as well because the Faith character in Buffy she played could be 50% exciting and sassy and 50% annoying (but then again so could Buffy).
I am just going to say that I loved it and no it didn't have the pop culture attitude of Buffy, the class (or cast) of Firefly or anything like the humour of his previous work but it was still one hell of a complex, adult, interesting and exciting show.
I could go into each episode and the overall plot of the piece but honestly all I want to say about it is that both my wife and I were on the edge of our seats and happily plowed through the 14 episodes on the DVD (including the original pilot) in no time at all and despite the negative and unfair reviews I have read about her, I thought that Eliza Dushku showed incredible range and versatility in all of the roles she is required to play in this show.
I also have a theory about why it wasn't so popular on TV. Watching each episode without adverts on DVD, the in depth, dense plot line develops quickly and cleverly. I couldn't imagine watching it week after week and having to wait each time, it would lose its carefully crafted nuance. Also this is a TV show without, really, any heros or villains. It's the first TV Show I have watched where everyone is in a grey area, which is just terrific. My wife and I had long discussions about whether we sided with the Dollhouse characters or the FBI agent and who in the Dollhouse would turn out to be good or evil. There was a lot more moral ambiguity than ever before and that doesn't sit well with audiences used to the black n white weekly soap opera/entertainment show where the labels are clearly defined. I did think, at some point, you had to accept what the Dollhouse was and not judge it in order to go along with the ride. By the time Alpha showed up we were completely hooked!
Thank goodness that Season 2 comes out in November because we are both hankering for more time in the Dollhouse. Now who's going to give Joss some money to resurrect this and Firefly simultaneously hmmmmmm?
8.5 out of 10 glorious steak and fries
Points from The Misses 9 out of 10 glorious steak and fries
Inception - 20th July 2010
I have mixed feelings about Inception. Watching it I knew I was watching something that was very well crafted, superbly acted and cleverly written. I watched it intently and closely because I had heard that it was a tough one to follow, that it could get confusing and that, for a summer blockbuster, it demanded a lot from its audience.
I honestly don't know what all the fuss was about, maybe I just have some sort enormous brain (which I highly doubt) but I thought everything was fairly self explanatory. Each dream level was clearly recognisable and despite it being a tense, action packed film at no point did I feel the plot itself was moving too quickly for me.
In fact I felt very little and that is the main problem with this film, I guess in that way it was a bit like a Kubrick movie (although even his best had characters you gave two hoots about), I knew or felt as much as I ever was going to about DiCaprio's character at the beginning of the flick as I did at the end and as for the rest of the characters I didn't learn their stories, motivations or ambitions. Nothing at all.
There were, as there is bound to be in a movie like this, glaring plot holes once you took a step back from it and thought about it for a moment and a bunch of times where they needed to get the rules straight. I find I can go on any kind of surreal or fantastical journey as long as the rules are well established first, this tends to go for sci-fi films featuring inter-dimensional or time travel, but in Inception I felt like they made up rules as they went along and as they were needed which hindered its believability.
However I am probably being far too critical about this, it was an expertly made, tense action drama. It was well acted with a suitably booming and exaggerated soundtrack and, people are right, for a summer blockbuster it certainly had a bit more going for it than your usual robots fighting ghost cgi pirates remake sequel movie. I just won't be in a hurry to watch it again.
7 out of 10 milkshakes.
Points from the Misses - 9 out of 10 milkshakes